Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 20STCV40085, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40085    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: 17

                                         Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant KND Development 52, LLC dba Kindred Hospital Baldwin Park’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

            On October 19, 2020, Plaintiffs Marion Newman, by and through her Successor-in-Interest, Tiffany Newman, and Tiffany Newman (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant KND Development 52, LLC dba Kindred Hospital Baldwin Park (“KND”) for (1) elder abuse (pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code § 15600, et seq.) and (2) wrongful death.  The complaint also named Debbie Newman, Donna Shelvin, Wesley Newman, Marion Newman, Christine Newman, and Jill Newman as nominal defendants.

            On November 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to complaint, substituting in AHMC San Gabriel Valley Medical Center LP dba San Gabriel Valley Medical Center (“AHMC”) for Doe 1.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed a request for dismissal of AHMC on June 15, 2022.  Dismissal was entered on June 20, 2022.

            On May 12, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to complaint, substituting in Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center for Doe 2.

            Defendant KND now moves for a court order finding the settlement between Plaintiffs and KND was made in good faith.  No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

CCP section 877.6(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that, on noticed motion, “[a]ny party to an action wherein it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff . . . and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors . . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6(a)(1).)  “A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6(c).)  Although a determination that a settlement was in good faith does not discharge any other party from liability, “it shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount stipulated” by the settlement.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877(a).)  “The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6(d).)

In Tech-Bilt Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, the California Supreme Court identified the following nonexclusive factors courts are to consider in determining if a settlement is in good faith under section 877.6: “a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would have if he were found liable after a trial.”  (Tech-Bilt, Inc., supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499.)  “Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.”  (Id.)

Discussion

            Defendant KND’s motion is unopposed.

            An unopposed motion for determination of good faith settlement need not contain a full and complete discussion of the Tech-Bilt factors by declaration or affidavit; rather, a barebones motion setting forth the grounds of good faith and a declaration containing a brief background of the case is sufficient.  (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.)

            KND’s counsel states that this action involves claims arising out of the treatment Decedent Marion Newman (“Decedent”) received during her admission to Defendant’s hospital from March 13, 2020 to July 20, 2020.  (Wang Decl., ¶ 2.)  Counsel states that Plaintiffs filed their complaint alleging causes of action for elder abuse and wrongful death.  (Id.)  According to counsel, after engaging in arms-length negotiations on June 9, 2022, Plaintiffs and KND agreed to settling Plaintiffs’ claims against KND for $40,000.00.  (Id., ¶ 3.)  Pursuant to the agreement, KND has agreed to pay $40,000.00 in exchange for a release and dismissal with prejudice, with each side to bear their own fees and costs.  (Id., ¶ 4.)  Counsel states that, based upon the potential testimony of witnesses and all documentary evidence, KND believes its potential liability at trial is significantly less than the settlement amount such that the settlement amount is fair and reasonable and within the ballpark of KND’s potential proportion of liability.  (Id., ¶¶ 6-8.)  Counsel declares the parties did not engage in any wrongful conduct in the negotiation of the settlement.  (Id., ¶ 9.)

            The Court finds KND has presented sufficient information demonstrating the settlement was made in good faith.  No opposition has been filed contending otherwise.

Based on the foregoing, the motion for determination of good faith settlement is granted.

The settlement between Defendant KND Development 52, LLC dba Kindred Hospital Baldwin Park and Plaintiffs Marion Newman, by and through her successor-in-interest, Tiffany Newman, and Tiffany Newman is a good faith settlement pursuant to CCP section 877.6.  All claims against the settling parties for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault, are barred pursuant to CCP section 877.6(c).

It is so ordered.

Dated:  September    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.